The psychology of film & TV, media, & work

Tag archive

Autonomy

How much choice do people want?

in Editor Pick/Media Psychology/Work Psychology by

One of the things I’ve learned is that every time you offer a choice you paralyse some people who can’t decide if that’s what they want to do or not.
They aren’t my words. They are those of Netflix’s chief product officer, Neil Hunt, who believes it’s counterproductive to offer customers more than one method to view their television shows.

His opinion seems arrogant. It implies that customers don’t know what they want and need Netflix to decide for them.

It seems logical that providing plenty of options gives us more freedom and allows us to select the option that best suits our needs.

But how much choice do people actually want?

Netflix and choice overload

According to research, providing several options doesn’t always promote freedom. Too many options can cause choice overload because we can find it difficult weighing up all the pros and cons of each alternative.

Think about how people watch television. Some people endlessly scan the channels, searching for the show that’s going to match their current mood and interest.

These individuals are adopting maximising strategies, which involves maximising the chances of landing the best possible outcome. They are motivated out of fear of missing out on something.

In contrast, some individuals aren’t too concerned about what else is on. Once they find a show that’s good enough, they simply sit back and enjoy it. These individuals are adopting satisficing strategies.

So, by limiting choices, Netflix helps reduce the tension felt by those who adopt maximising strategies.

The Netflix approach will also work for individuals who adopt satisficing strategies. After all, they are satisfied more easily anyway.

McDonalds and single option aversion

So, it seems all we need to do is inhibit choice and we’ll all be liberated, right?

We all know consumers want choice. We don’t want to be told where to have a holiday and what colour car to buy.

When individuals are funnelled toward one option, they experience single option aversion, where they feel constrained and dissatisfied.

Many businesses make it their mission to ensure their customers can select almost anything that suits their unique needs.

Take McDonalds. Not content with cheeseburgers, Big Macs, coffee, salads, desserts, all-day breakfast, dining in, drive-through and gourmet burgers, McDonalds now allows customers to create their own unique hamburger. They can select everything from the burger bun to the type of mustard and cheese.

This McVariety allows McDonalds to remain competitive in a saturated fast food market.

McRegret

McDonald’s diversified menu, however, hasn’t bolstered sales.

Consumers who were once quite comfortable and familiar with the menu are now wondering if they should have tried that new make-your-own-burger. They may be left feeling as though they missed out on something that was never an issue in the past.

The consumers who try the new burgers leave wondering if spending the extra cash and time building a burger was really worth it. After all, they could have spent a similar amount on a gourmet burger at a café or restaurant.

It seems that individuals want choice but there could be a tipping point that actually ends up confusing customers.

A McHappy Middle Ground

Instead of limiting options, perhaps there’s another approach. In particular, research indicates it’s the way we present choices that counts rather than the number of choices per se.

For example, when the same number of choices are grouped into categories, the choices don’t feel insurmountable.

Another option is to simply present the same number of options but don’t compare them on more than a few attributes. When there are too many attributes, the decision becomes more complicated and individuals feel overwhelmed.

Your choice

So, how much choice do you think people want? Like Netflix, I walked you down one path to the final solution. I didn’t really give you freedom to decide. Do you want another option?

Can you control the odd billion changes that are occurring right now?

in Editor Pick/Work Psychology by

In just one minute, 243,000 photos will be uploaded to Facebook. One-hundred and forty four people will move to a new home. Approximately 136, 824, 00 pounds of carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere.

You are changing constantly and so is everything around you.

Larger organisations are essentially all about responding to and enacting changes on a massive scale. In the face of these dynamic environments, we set up support structures to ensure that change can occur as cleanly and efficiently as possible. Buildings go up. Bridges are built.

It’s essential that there are dedicated people to help remove all obstacles so that people can focus on the changes that count.

Think about the challenges of a Human Resource team. New people enter organisations every week. Employees leave.

Human Resources need to ensure this occurs as effectively as possible whilst trying to work out what type of person they want to enter and which ones they want to retain, train, and how to go about building all the qualities we want in people.

You may believe the best approach to bringing this stability and achieving long-term success is to control things centrally, like a mother ship or a queen bee. To ensure consistency and compliance, everything goes through a controlled decision-making group.

This approach may involve enforcing the policies and standards and having final say on all capability decisions. If you tend to believe that change needs to be controlled, then you may prefer this centralised approach.

Think about the trusty ol’ iPhone. What if Apple adopted a centralised approach managing their customers?

What if they found ways to penalise you if you didn’t use this phone? What if after purchasing the phone, they told you there was a series of mandatory training programs you will need to attend before you can switch it on?

This may seem odd, but it’s essentially what organisations do everyday when we occupy a more centralised approach to managing change.

In contrast, you may believe that change needs to be embraced and that you are better off letting people surf the waves rather than restricting them in the swimming pool. You may, instead, give people the swimming lessons and surf board, and allow them to tumble off the surfboard from time to time.

If you hold beliefs that people need freedom and autonomy, therefore, you may prefer a decentralised approach to providing support. That is, you are there to enable and influence rather than ensure compliance.

This approach more closely aligns with a ‘customer service’ approach to support where you are essentially there to help people.

Take a safety support function that desperately wants to lower injury rates. Their tendency may be to initiate more standards, procedures, rules, and audits. The importance of their goal, after all, is something we can’t deny.

What if, instead, they adopted a decentralised, customer-centric approach? They could, for example, build resilience and motivation, which could help maintain alertness and situation awareness. This approach also has the benefit of being more flexible to the inevitable changes that surround us.

The centralised approach is too easy. We mandate a new rule then shake our heads in disbelief when these important rules are ignored or bent.

Of course, simply responding mindlessly to customers can be risky. A doctor, for example, who simply orders an operation that a patient demands is not really looking after their customer.

For internal support services, responding quickly and efficiently to customers can also mean that lots of new changes occur that create confusion and may not align with the broader organisational goals.

Ultimately, it probably boils down to what a customer needs rather than what a customer wants.

And now we’ve reached the end of the blog, just reflect on how much has changed.

About 116 people just got married. 58 airplanes just took off. About seven billion human hearts beat 500,500,000,000 times.

Mother ship, this is Dr Duck. How are we going to control all of this?

 

Note.

Last month, my colleague, Maurice Cristiano, and myself, conducted some research to find out some best practice thinking in regards to internal support services. The above is a bit of a summary of the views and advice of some experts we spoke to with a bit of my own interpretation and opinion mixed in.

We’d like to thank the following people for their insights. Please note that this blog does not necessarily reflect their views or the views of my workplace.

Marvin Oka – Behavioural Modeller, Keynote Speaker, Corporate Consultant

Dr Simon Moss – Senior Lecturer at Charles Darwin University

Peter Howell – Group Manager HR Operations at John Holland

Michael Ingpen – Business Analyst

Saiful Nasir – Lead Consultant – Business Process Management

Craig Roberton – Principal Consultant at RXP Services Ltd

Craig Skipsey – Evangelist at Responsive.org

Robert De Wet – Semi retired construction innovation and bid coach

Dr Fiona Kenvyn – Human Factors consultant

Chris Burton – Asia Pacific Learning Development Manager at TMS

Sara Pazell – Occupational Advisor: Human Factors & Ergonomics/Human Performance Technologist

Marigo Raftopoulos – CEO Strategic Innovation Lab

Read this blog!

in Work Psychology by

Picture

Now that I have your attention, can I ask if you will read this blog today? Now, go and make a coffee and think about it. The blog will still be here when you get back.

Ok, you’re still reading? It worked then? That’s ok, I know you didn’t really make a
coffee. You’re more of a tea person, right?

These somewhat trivial instructions can influence whether someone will modify their behaviour. Take a Stop sign. It doesn’t ask you to ponder whether you would like to stop. It just directs you to do so. And most of the time people comply. This kind of message is what’s referred to as an ‘imperative’.

But think about the kind of message you get on the back of a cigarette packet. It usually highlights a horrible disease you might develop as a result of smoking, getting you to ponder and make a choice. That is, it doesn’t simply say, ‘Stop smoking now,’ recognising that some behaviour is modified over time and needs to be sustainable.

These messages are called ‘interrogative’ because they rely on you taking more time to process the information.

A recent study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology showed that people are more likely to follow the interrogative message when they have more time to think it through.

In one study they placed a sign next to a flight of stairs and set of escalators. Two
types of messages were posted. Pedestrians either saw the imperative message (‘Take the Stairs’) or interrogative message (‘Will you take the stairs?’).

At first it looked like the imperative message was more effective because more pedestrians took the stairs when they viewed this message. However, when the sign was placed further away from the escalator, to give more time for people to consider the message, they were more likely to use the stairs after reading the interrogative message.

The researchers suggest that when there is little time, direct messages are more
likely to be followed. However, when people have a bit more time to think, they
generally prefer instructions that invite autonomy and choice.

The point is that direct and blunt instructions may get people to act but they may be less inclined to follow these instructions when they have time to think it through. That is, people want some say in their destiny.

Stop reading now! If you want to…

Go to Top